Friday, December 28, 2012

Below is a model contemporary motion for Welsh Labour conference, which calls on
the Welsh party leadership to take a lead in building opposition to the UK
government's attacks on working people and the poor. The idea behind the motion
is that the damage being done by Con-Dem policies is such that we cannot afford
to wait for a possible Labour victory in 2015. Given that a
recent poll shows that a majority of voters want an early general election,
our party has a real opportunity to take the fight to the Tories and their
Lib-Dem hangers-on - demanding that they either change course or face the people
- and to ensure that Labour administrations do everything they can to deflect or
mitigate the cuts. If we can get this motion onto the conference a genda, we can
start a real debate about a response to Tory austerity that goes beyond gritting
our teeth and hoping for the best.

The Welsh party conference is due to
take place in Llandudno from 22nd to 24th March 2013 and the deadline for
receipt of contemporary motions by Welsh Labour is 12.00 noon on 8th
February, so this motion will need to go through January branch and GC
(or affiliate) meetings. Please try to have this motion (or some version of
it) discussed and adopted by your local party - and please let us know how you
get on.

Draft
model contemporary motion for Welsh Labour conference 2013

Conference notes that

·Wales’ economy and public services have been put
under intolerable pressure by the UK government’sspending cuts, which have slashed theWelsh Government budget cut by £2 billion in
real terms over three years;

·Wales was the only part of the UK to have seen
no growth in median wages in 2011/12, and was left with the lowest median wage
in Britain;

·The anti-poverty coalition, ‘Cuts Watch Cymru’,
has estimated that one in four people in Wales will be adversely affected by
welfare ‘reforms’, a threat now exacerbated by the announcement of a real-terms
benefit cut in the Chancellor’s December 2012 autumn statement;

·The devolution to Wales, with insufficient funding,
of responsibility for a replacement for Council Tax Benefit highlights the
danger of the Welsh Government and Welsh councils being left to wield the
Con-Dems’ axe.

Conference acknowledges that, while the
Welsh Labour Government has little power to soften the blow being inflicted on
the Welsh people, due to its financial dependence on Westminster, it can and
should give political leadership to the campaign against the Con-Dem cuts,
reiterating the arguments made convincingly by the TUC and others that the cuts
are a political choice, not an economic necessity, and should be replaced by a
policy of investment to stimulate sustainable growth and job creation, as well
as robust crackdown on tax evasion and avoidanceby the rich.

Conference therefore believes that the Welsh Labour leadership should
do everything it can to co-ordinate the efforts of Welsh Labour councils,
affiliated trade unions and local parties to defend the people of Wales and,
specifically, that it should:

·maintain the clear position that no
privatisation/outsourcing or compulsory redundancies should be carried out by
Welsh Labour councils or by the Welsh Government, and that major changes to
service provision or staffing should be introduced only by agreement with
recognised unions, under the established employee relations arrangements;

·encourage Welsh Labour councils to pursue other
options – such as borrowing, spending their reserves and/or raising council tax
– rather than cut vital services;

·seek to ensure that all Labour councils
implement the Living Wage, in line with Welsh Labour policy, both for core
staff and for any contractors who may be engaged;

·organise a special conference, as soon as
practicable, to co-ordinate the party's response to austerity; and

·support industrial action by trade unions
against any aspect of the UK government’s austerity agenda, as well as
community campaigns to defend local services, and work with the Wales TUC to deliver
the latter’s conference commitment to organise an anti-cuts demonstration in Wales
at the earliest opportunity, with full Labour support.

Monday, December 10, 2012

NATIONAL POLICY FORUM Update

for Welsh Labour party members

End of year report 2012

By Annabelle Harle, Darren Williams, Nick Davies and Donna Hutton (Welsh CLP delegates to the NPF) This bulletin gives an update on our activities as representatives of Welsh Labour members on the National Policy Forum (NPF), the party’s principal policy-making body, since our re-election in the summer, along with significant recent developments like the launch of Agenda 2015 and the ‘Your Britain’ policy hub (www.yourbritain.org.uk). We are available to discuss any of these issues with party members in Wales and welcome invitations to speak at party meetings.

Welsh party members re-elect sitting policy reps
We are grateful to Welsh Labour members for the vote of confidence they gave us in the elections to the constituency section of the NPF that were held in the summer. Wales has four CLP reps, plus one additional youth rep, on the Forum, in common with every UK region. This was the second time that the election has been conducted by an all-member ballot and three of us who were first elected in 2010 (Annabelle, Nick and Darren) all won a second term, standing once again on the Welsh Labour Grassroots (WLG) slate, alongside Donna Hutton, taking over from Gail Giles, who is now a cabinet member on Newport City Council. Donna is well-known to many Welsh Labour members as a Welsh Executive rep for North Wales, a full-time Unison official and a former parliamentary candidate. The four of us overcame competition from five other candidates (four of them backed by ‘Progress’, the self-styled ‘New Labour pressure group’). The youth place was secured, unopposed, by first-time candidate, Pearleen Sangha from Swansea West.

We see the result as an endorsement of the platform set out clearly in our individual election statements and in our joint literature, namely:

 that the party nationally should make a decisive break with the market-driven policies it adopted during the ‘New Labour’ period – and, in so doing, it should look to the positive experience of Welsh Labour’s record in devolved areas like health and education;

 that Labour’s policy development and decision-making should become more open and accountable – and we aim to practise what we preach in this respect, by circulating detailed reports of our activities on the NPF and making ourselves available to give verbal reports.

We have also worked closely with Mark Whitcutt, who was re-elected unopposed at Welsh Labour conference in February, as one of the two ‘regional’ NPF reps who are delegated by conference to represent the whole Welsh party (his fellow regional rep is now Diane Green of Unite, taking over from Stella Matthews). PF Birmingham meeting – June 2012The weekend of 16/17 June saw a two-day session of the NPF at Aston University in Birmingham – the third and last meeting of the 2010-12 term, coming (rather oddly) after the ballot had closed for the 2012-14 term but before the results were declared. It was the first meeting for a year (notwithstanding a couple of telephone conferences). Annabelle, Darren and Mark went along, as did Stella, attending her final meeting before her term ended. In an important sense, however, it was more like the first meeting of a ‘new’ NPF than the last of the old Forum, since the body is ‘under new management’. Peter Hain has been replaced by Angela Eagle as NPF chair, while Jon Cruddas is now leading the policy review, taking over from Liam Byrne. (Harriet Harman described Cruddas and Eagle as ‘resolutely rooted in the party’ and added that if Labour had listened more to the party when in government, ‘we would have done things differently’.) There were indications that we were going to see a more transparent and inclusive approach to policy-making, and this has been borne out, to some extent.

When most of us attended our first NPF meeting in November 2010, Ed Miliband had recently been elected leader and there was a lot of emphasis on the need for the party to learn from recent mistakes – both in relation to its substantive policies and to the process of policy formation, known as ‘Partnership into Power’ (PiP). When NPF members highlighted problems with PiP, such as the lack of feedback given to party units on their submissions and the lack of a clearly-defined role for most NPF members in policy-making, assurances were given that these issues would be addressed. Yet, despite a further meeting six months later and two telephone conferences, at which the same complaints were made, there was little evidence of any progress until the change of NPF leadership. One immediate tangible improvement at the June meeting was that the main discussion papers were circulated in good time and NPF members were even given online access to the submissions received in response to the previous set of consultation papers (although not sufficiently far in advance of the meeting as to allow reps time to read the hundreds of pages of text). Spreading the meeting over two days allowed a change of plan on the second day, making reps feel that progress was indeed being made, and afforded us more opportunity for discussion with reps from other regions.Agenda

The meeting included policy workshops on each of the party’s six key policy areas, additional European-themed workshops organised by an organisation called the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (which, it seems, had provided much of the funding for the weekend) and four major plenary sessions. Of the latter, one focused on Ed Miliband’s keynote speech, one was on Europe while the other two dealt with the progress of the party’s policy review and reform of the ‘Partnership into Power’ process. Ed Miliband’s speech

Ed began by thanking everyone who had contributed to Labour’s success in the local elections, before turning to the political picture. Among the points made were:
 the public economy and private economy are mutually dependent and should not be divided

 the Leveson revelations were a symbol of what was wrong with politics - the Murdoch empire should be broken up

 Austerity isn’t working at home or abroad - the Tories are standing up for the wrong people, governing with the wrong ideas.

 Reward should be related to effort - we can’t continue to have bosses paid 100 or 1000 times what their lowest-paid employee gets.

 We must be seen in the future as the first generation to ‘get’ climate change, not the last generation not to get it.  We have to raise people’s expectations about politics, and show that we’re not ‘all the same’.

 We don’t stand for the rich and powerful but for ordinary people. We have to look like the country we seek to represent – we can’t rest until 50% of MPs are women and we have addressed the lack of working-class representation.

 It’s not enough to deliver competent government; we have to offer a vision of a different kind of society, based on responsibility, solidarity and community – the values of the British people, which are not reflected by this government.

In the subsequent plenary, Annabelle asked Ed to be aware of the potential implications for Welsh Labour of heavy UK Labour involvement in the "Better Together" campaign in the Scottish independence referendum campaign. He made it clear that he recognised the sensitivities involved. Policy workshops

There were initial policy workshops on the Saturday – one for each of the six policy areas covered by a commission. The discussion in each of these sessions was based on a short document summarising the main issues that the party needs to consider in drawing up its manifesto. In a novel development (and one that had not been possible at previous one-day meetings), two specific items within each policy-area that seemed, on the first day, worthy of detailed further discussion were given a stand-alone session the following day.
Of the initial workshops, we were able to cover the following:

 the Health workshop with Andy Burnham: the key themes here were the need to start from a ‘whole person’ approach to health and social care and to develop a system fit for the 21st century, not the twentieth, recognising that a changing reality was putting the system to the test and exposing the cracks between health, social care and mental health services. Darren pointed out that healthcare was much more integrated in Wales than in England, due to Welsh Labour’s rejection of the internal market.

 the Education & skills workshop with Stephen Twigg and Sharon Hodgson, which touched on a wide spectrum of educational issues from childcare to schooling to further education. Concerns were expressed about the present government’s cuts in Surestart and its loan system which jeopardises the future of adult education. When the discussion turned to special educational needs, Mark highlighted the Welsh approach, including the shift to additional learning needs, the integration of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Welsh government policy and the all-Wales autism strategy. Annabelle added that Wales was following its own path on education, had a sound comprehensive system and had retained the EMA. Stephen Twigg said that England should have followed the Welsh approach on 14-19 education.

 the ‘Britain in the World’ workshop, which was attended by a number of shadow foreign and defence ministers. Points were raised on aid to developing countries, the Millennium Development Goals, the European Union and Iran’s nuclear programme (the latter two raised by Darren). But the main discussion was on the issue of Trident replacement, which was strongly opposed, for a variety of reasons, by most of those who contributed to the discussion - including Annabelle - but doggedly championed by John Spellar, impervious to opposition.

 the Crime, Justice, Citizenship and Communities workshop with Chris Bryant and David Hanson, which did not excite as much concern about anti-social behaviour as its discussion paper anticipated. Mention was made of the police commissioner elections and of alcohol-related crime. Annabelle raised alcohol as a health issue as well as a crime-related one, costing the country a great deal of money, and called for measures to discourage excess drinking, citing the success of anti-smoking moves. She also asked for attention to the plight of asylum seekers, who are not allowed to work. There was concern that the relaxation of employment law, allowing "no-fault" sackings, could become a racist charter.

 21st Century Defence Capabilities, which was almost exclusively about Trident – this had been identified by many reps as a key issue of the weekend; they attended in strength and delivered an even more emphatic rejection of renewal than the previous day. The chair of the session, Ellie Reeves, acknowledged the opposition to Trident but said that this was not necessarily representative of opinion in the party as a whole and that there had to be a wider debate.  Schools More Accountable to their Communities: there was some recognition that the last Labour government had bent the stick too far, in English education policy, towards empowering schools – especially Academies – to manage their own affairs, at the expense of overall democratic accountability and that this had enabled the Con-Dems to give schools even greater freedom. Stephen Twigg seemed to want to restore some of the political responsibility

that used to rest with LEAs in England (and still does in Wales) but without being seen to undermine ‘parental choice’. Annabelle argued that LEAs are the best way to plan, ensure consistency, pool services, etc. and talked about Cardiff comprehensive schools that enable every child to fulfil their potential and celebrate every talent. European-themed workshops

‘Jobs Growth in Europe’ was a discussion of the Eurozone crisis and its likely outcome by a panel consisting of an academic, a shadow Treasury minister, a Dutch MP and a business lobbyist, chaired by the economist and Labour peer, Stewart Wood. The panellists provided useful insights into the unfolding drama but they seemed to share a somewhat top-down, technocratic approach to the crisis, based on the assumption that the preservation of the Euro, and economic stability generally, were more important than social justice.
In ‘How can the Left win again?’, Douglas Alexander, Peter Kellner, a leading official of the Australian Labor Party, and a Swedish MP discussed how social-democratic parties can present an electoral platform true to their fundamental values while also appealing to voters. Alexander observed that centre-left parties’ period of relative success beginning in the late 1990s had come to an end after the economic crash and also acknowledged that Labour had, in the past, wrongly presented globalisation and European integration as unalloyed good things. Again, this was a fascinating discussion, and the international aspect very welcome, but there were few concrete suggestions as to the way forward. Plenary sessions

Prior to the plenary session on PiP Reform, NPF reps had already received two documents on improving the policy process: an ‘official’ one (presumably written by the Joint Policy Committee – the ‘executive’ of the NPF) and one from the Trade Union & Labour Party Liaison Organisation (TULO), the umbrella body for affiliated unions. The official paper included welcome commitments to make policy-making ‘more transparent, accountable and responsive’, with ‘shorter consultation documents produced each year, focussing on top political priorities – including options and choices where appropriate – with new guidance on how to get involved’. The proposals as to how reform would be delivered were, however, rather hazy or tentative (e.g. ‘consideration’ would be given to allowing NPF members not elected to Policy Commissions to attend their meetings, while an ‘online policy forum to host debate’ would be an ‘aspiration’, ‘pending available resources’.) The TULO paper was a bit more concrete, its main thrust being the need for year-on-year continuity of the policy papers, which could not be amended other than by party units or affiliates, who would send their amendments directly to the relevant Policy Commissions, with the latter putting these to the full NPF if they could not agree. TULO also wanted greater clarity and consistency about putting alternative (majority & minority) positions to party conference. In the plenary session, Angela Eagle invited suggestions as to how the process could be improved. The following comments were among those that seemed to command broad support, and which she appeared to take on board (although it was unclear how far she was making a definite executive decision to adopt certain proposals, and how far she was simply acknowledging those that fitted broadly with the vague commitments in the paper mentioned above):

 that all NPF members should be on policy commissions

 that there should be greater reflection of the experience of Wales and Scotland (Annabelle & Mark)

 that alternative policy positions should be put to conference (based on the TULO submission)

 that the party needs to be in better position to engage our allies in discussion

 that NPF members need to have access to the submissions to the policy process made by individuals, party units/affiliates and other organisations

 that each policy commission should publish a newsletter giving an update on its work (every six months or so, it was suggested)

 that ordinary party members need to believe that they can propose policy and have it adopted.

In the plenary session on the Policy Review, Jon Cruddas set out his thoughts about the general approach that he felt the party should be taking. He described the present political situation as a historical turning-point, which represents a major opportunity for Labour, if we are ‘up for it’. He pointed out that on previous occasions when the party had lost power (1931, 1951 and 1979) it had gone on to tear itself apart, whereas, fortunately, that hadn’t happened in 2010. Labour now needed to do what it had succeeded in doing on those occasions when it had won big electoral victories in the past (1945, 1964, 1997) and successfully contested the ‘national story’. We should be saying that the Tories are simply managing decline, whereas Labour is about rebuilding. Cruddas admitted that there had been problems with the ‘PiP’ process in the past but was keen to learn from NPF reps’ views and experiences as to how the review should move forward. In the session that followed, a large number of disparate points were raised, to which Cruddas responded with evident interest and enthusiasm. He also said that 29 policy groups had been established to examine policy in detail, each led by shadow cabinet member. It was unclear, however, how their work would be synchronised with that of the NPF itself. In the weeks following the Birmingham meeting, this point was underscored by significant policy announcements – by Stephen Twigg and Jim Murphy on ‘military schools’ and by Ed Miliband on banking reform – that had not even been discussed by the NPF. Conclusion

There was a definite feeling, among those present in Birmingham, that the post-2010 NPF was at last getting down to business, after the ‘false starts’ represented by the earlier meetings and telephone conferences. Angela Eagle’s down-to-earth and businesslike chairing and approachability was a breath of fresh air, while Jon Cruddas’ approach combined intellectual seriousness with a sensitivity towards electoral considerations. The introduction, on the second day, of more focussed discussions on particular issues was a very welcome initiative, as was the more concrete discussion than hitherto about reforming the PiP process. All three of the present writers who attended the meeting also highlighted the need for policy papers to reflect developments in Wales and Scotland if this is to be more than just an ‘English’ Policy Forum – and this point seemed to be embraced by both Eagle and Cruddas.
Within a few days of the Birmingham meeting, Angela Eagle had emailed party members with a brief summary of the event, including links to the text of Ed Miliband’s speech, the policy papers and the contact details for their local NPF reps. At about the same time, she emailed her congratulations to those of us who had been re-elected to the NPF, providing useful links and saying that the recent meeting had been ‘just the start’ of ‘the process of reinvigorating the way we make policy’. She added that ‘I know more than anyone how frustrating the Party’s policy making process has been in recent years, which is why I’m so committed to changing it. Ed and I will be setting out more detail of how we propose to take this forward in the next few months. That means we need to involve our members, trade unions and affiliates in shaping the policy process.’ Changes to PiP agreed at party conference

In September/October, the party conference agreed a package of reforms to the PiP process that had been presented by the NEC. The main elements of this are:
 A new online ‘Policy Hub’ where party members and the public can read papers, make submissions, suggest amendments, etc.;

 A more structured process, with a clear timetable, and NPF members having the opportunity to make decisions on the content of policy papers at annual Forum meetings – even involving voting (a rarity at present);

 A reorganisation and expansion of the policy commissions, with a greater focus on economic issues, reflecting the changed political landscape following the financial crisis;

 An opportunity for annual conference to choose some of the key topics that the NPF will consider in any given year, by means of a Priorities Ballot at Conference;

 Better feedback for Party members who get involved, with an online audit trail for submissions and amendments.

This package involves less of a role for party conference than that proposed in the TULO paper and, in fact, a rule change motion from Bridgend CLP, which would have given conference the right to amend NPF documents, was ruled out of order on somewhat questionable grounds. Agenda 2015 and Your Britain

The name of the new policy process is Agenda 2015 (‘PiP’ having been dropped, after 15 years). The new ‘policy hub’ website was launched on 22 November and is open to everybody. Annabelle was able to go to a preview meeting at party HQ the previous week, where the head of Policy Development demonstrated how the website works. The site is called Your Britain (www.yourbritain.org.uk) and, although there is a link to it from the party website, it is a standalone site accessible to everybody, not just to Labour members or registered supporters. It is clearly intended to tie in with the ‘One Nation’ concept set out in Ed Miliband’s conference speech. Your Britain will be the home for the manifesto for the next Westminster general election, which will be developed under the rubric of Agenda 2015. It will be, to continue to use the jargon, a portal for submissions and a campaigning and engagement tool, and the plan is that it will be led by the NPF. On the site, one can read policy documents, make submissions, comment on other people’s submissions and vote (only Labour party members will be able to vote). There will be information and updates on the website too and a forum for NPF reps, which will not be open to the public. The hope is that, with anyone able to use the website, there will be community engagement, as well as submissions from NPF reps and party units and, importantly, from affiliates (the unions and socialist societies), as well as external organisations. NPF members are expected to inform and enthuse other party members about the process and act as champions for the site.

There are currently ten ‘Challenge Papers’ on the website. These are concise documents on each of the priority areas chosen at conference and are intended to stimulate debate, on the basis of which a policy paper will be published in the spring, setting out options for the party to consider. They are out for consultation until 28 February 2013. The ten Challenge Papers, and the new policy commissions responsible in each case, are as follows: Stability and Prosperity Policy Commission

A British Investment Bank: making it a reality

Stability and Prosperity Policy Commission

Tax avoidance: tax havens

Work and Business Policy Commission

Protecting workers: including the role of agency workers, the living wage, and Gangmaster Licensing Authority

Work and Business Policy Commission

Vocational education, apprenticeships and the role of job guarantees in tackling youth unemployment.

Living Standards and Sustainability Policy Commission

Our buses and railways: giving communities more of a say

Education and Children Policy Commission

Childcare: what matters to parents and children?

Stronger, Safer Communities Policy Commission

The housing crisis: house building and a private rented sector that works for Britain’s families

Friday, December 7, 2012

The views expressed in this email and blog are those of the individuals
whose name is attached to the posting. They do not represent a collective
position of the WLG or the Labour Party

Dear Comrades

[I hesitate
to say ‘this week’s blog’ as there has been a gap of a couple of weeks whilst
we enjoyed the presence of our daughter’s family from NZ. Strictly speaking
though, this is now the blog – No 11 - that belongs to this week! – Len]

Since the last blog we have experienced a number
of ‘turns of the screw’: the attack on Gaza, the proposed Israeli West Bank
settlement as a response to the UN vote on Palestine; the Tories continuing to
do the bidding of the rich media barons in their response to Leveson and
everyone avoiding the question of media ownership domination; and finally the
Autumn budget statement where the Tories hit the poor and trade unions and
announced faux initiatives to be lapped up by their rich friends and the right
wing press. And yet, reason enough not to be pessimistic if you are an
internationalist, as fightbacks continue around the world in a historical
period where it is increasingly clear ‘their fight is our fight’ wherever it
takes place.

In our own way as WLG we have been talking and
thinking through how relate to these events and, in particular, how to respond
the political and economic consequences in Wales. Following on from the
excellent AGM on 27 October – reported in the last blog - the WLG meeting in
Swansea on Saturday 1 December broadened the discussion. Mark Seddon laid the
ground for a general debate, which is followed through in this week’s
discussion section, and members raised key issues derived from their
experiences covering the growing housing crisis; how Labour councillors could
resist the cuts; and serious questioning of the Welsh Government’s intentions
over education and health. We will take these concerns to the Welsh Labour
policy forum on the 8 December and we are in the process of preparing a draft
motion for the Welsh Labour conference early next year. When finalised, we can
use it to launch debates in branches and constituencies around Wales.

Our next WLG meeting will concentrate on how Labour
councillors can fight the cuts and will take place in Cardiff on 26 January.
Councillors and all members and supporters who are interested are most welcome.

Saturday, 15 December: Socialist Educational Association Cymru festive coffee morning (with refreshments) at 17 Gileston Road, CF11 9JS (off Cathedral Road), followed by a working lunch to discuss two important issues in Welsh education: (1) The proposal to keep GCSEs in Wales; and (2) The proposal to do away with LEAs and replace them with a smaller number of schoolboards.

Saturday, 26 January 2013 WLG day school on ‘Councils
and the cuts’, 11.00 am-4.00 pm at the Welsh Institute of Sport, Cardiff. Further details to follow soon.

Left
Week
– Len Arthur

With such big events happening over the last 10
days or so, it is difficult to not plaster this bit with urls. So this week I’m
concentrating on what are some of the best left budget responses. Next week I’ll
try to pull together references to help us make sense of what is going on in
Wales.

As ever, if you don’t mind a dense read, Michael
Roberts is excellent in his budget
analysis, placing what is going on within the context of
the workings of capitalism. The New
Economics Foundation provides a good
follow up read. Acres have been written on the
detail and the parliamentary political context but some of the more insightful
have been in the New Statesman;
the Independent;
and of course the LRC’s
response.
Left Futures has a good analysis by Michael
Meacher covering the murky, sham reality of Osborne’s
statement on tax avoidance and on the same issue; the NEF has started to
produce a series of videos
on tax havens. An article in The Guardian on the ONS household survey ends with this: ‘An
analysis by ONS reveals just how much real spending has fallen once inflation
is taken into account. The figures reveal that real spending by households is
running at 11% lower in real terms than at its peak in 2004 – 05. Adjusted for
inflation, families spent £481 a week in 2011 compared to £541 in 2004 – 05.
Current spending levels are now only at the level they were in 1996 – 97’. I.e
the working class pays the cost!Under the cover of
the budget statement, the Tories thought they could slip through the end of Remploy.
I’m tempted to swear.

One or two other pieces I couldn’t resist from the
Guardian
about Leveson and the response from Liberty and this French
statement from a leading member of the Socialist Party who
has decided to leave the Party – same tensions, different country.

Labour Party

The UK Labour Party
website is here
and by the time you read this the election results will be out.

In a recent discussion blog
Darren Williams analysed the limits of Welsh Labourism, suggesting a number of
forms of political action that could be initiated to start to move beyond these
confines. This discussion piece will come at the same problem, drawing upon our
earlier discussion relating to the possible ways of understanding the current
crisis of capitalism, and how the power of capital can be confronted. Climate
change can also be seen as being inextricably connected to these two contextual
issues, consequently this discussion relates to and draws upon the experience
of the green movement.

Darren’s blog drew upon issues raised by Mark Drakeford’s
contribution to our WLG AGM. This current piece has been inspired by the recent
contributions of two other Marks (must be an age thing!): Serwotka at a recent
Cardiff TUC meeting and Seddon at our last WLG meeting in Swansea. Mark
Serwotka made three points. First, he emphasised just how serious and
ideologically driven were the Tories’ attacks on welfare, the public sector and
trade unions. Second, he argued that the Labour Party should be taking a longer
term economic view, being prepared to propose fundamental structural change on
how the economy works, consequently leading the attack on the basics of
neo-liberalism, not looking for a weak compromise. Third, he argued that the
trade union leadership was central to challenging the neo-liberal consensus,
but they themselves were in a crisis and were behind the pace. This was his big
picture, and he then proceeded to describe the gap between the present state of
the movement and what needs to be done. He was in no way pessimistic and
provided an example of how the PCS was aiming to mobilise around pay and
conditions - now that other unions had neutralised the pensions issue - but
also described how the PCS had to retreat on pensions as a consequence, and how
mobilising had to start again from a low base.

Mark Seddon argued that despite the worst and most
obvious crisis of capitalism for decades, politics were not automatically
coming to the left. In fact, it was possible that a populist drift to the right was taking place,
as seen in the rise of UKIP. Like Serwotka, Seddon argued that there is a crisis of
leadership that was really a crisis of confidence, resulting from the defeats
of the trade unions in the 1980s, consequently no real opposition was being
offered to the scorched earth policies of the Tories. He described their
version of neo-liberalism as ‘market Leninism’ and argued that the Labour Party
needed a big idea to challenge this consensus, based upon a massive jobs and
investment programme developed with the support of the trade unions and the
public sector and, secondly, to ensure that addressing inequality was central
to all activities. Working toward this vision would provide the basis of taking
power back in the Labour Party as would linking with affiliated unions, such as
Unite, to support a recruitment drive. He then specifically outlined an
alternative policy agenda, such as a commitment to full employment; a financial
transaction tax; relating to the global economy by arguing for a different
social and democratic EU; and supporting workers and consumer cooperatives.

Both contributions aimed high, at the essential
need to confront neo-liberalism and the power of capitalism; both ackowledged that
there is a gap between where we are, and having the power to achieve this
alternative vision; what can nevertheless be done, if we have theconfidence and
consciousness to go forward with a commitment to action, informed by a clear political
narrative; and both had some practical suggestions, as did Darren in his blog.
Interestingly, a version of the same issue ignited a recent debate on the
Labour Briefing Facebook
group which has had 92 contributions. And in the
Guardian last Friday, Anna Karpf discussed
how she tries to avoid ‘tuning out’ when dealing with a similar gap in relation
to the issues of climate change. All these contributions reveal a narrative
that needs addressing: both capital and climate change stand exposed like never
before; frustration and anger exists and is growing, and in Lenin’s terms, the
flammable material is there, along with the possibility of a spark that could
set it off: and yet the struggle could be in retreat in the UK.

The problem is fundamentally one of scale between the
size of the challenge and our consciousness and confidence in our ability to do
anything about it. As Anna Karpf suggests, the gap can seem so daunting, that each comment or exposure
just makes people feel more impotent and powerless. Every time we expose the
disastrous consequences of the Tories, capitalism, climate change and neo-liberalism
in this situation it can have the unintentional consequences of increasing the
size of the ‘gap’ : we can become seen as prophets of doom instead of beacons
of hope. What can be done?

A classic reformist approach to this problem is to
reduce the scale of the challenge. First, as in management babble, emphasise
the positive and neutralise the negative, such as the ‘dented shield’ argument:
we may have to stop all the arts funding but at least we saved many social
workers’ jobs. Second, as argued at a recent WLG meeting by Mark Drakeford, is
a form of managing down expectations along the lines that it may be unfortunate,
but we have to be realistic and accept that we live in times of austerity. It
could be argued that ‘with you in good times and bad’ and now ‘one nation
Labour’ is an example of this approach. Third, is the Fabian reformist
argument, that it is not possible radically to change or confront power in our
society, so let us concentrate on small but hopefully incremental gains – well,
at least they might last until the next Tory government blows them away.
Fourth, there is the Blairite Progress position: what is wrong with
neo-liberalism, we should embrace it so that at least it will be Labour
version. There are other variants but the picture is clear: reduce the scale of
the problem to action that fits the budget and the realistic social democrat
possibilities.

In the first two blog discussion pieces we covered
the economic thinking that may support these reformist approaches – basically a
‘muddling through’ or traditional Keynesian perspective. The pieces then went
on to explore the overlaps between some Marxist and radical Keynesian
approaches and finally, the Marxist approaches that are rooted in the
structural contradictions of how capitalism works and the problems of the
falling rate of profit. If the latter two approaches are those that you personally
find convincing and now need tackling, then the scale of the current ‘gap’ problem
remains and cannot be minimised by reformist measures. So, if that is where you
are, what can be done to bridge the gap?

People personally faced with the direct
consequences of the Tory neo-liberal policies, and not knowing how to fight back,
will tend to retreat into individual solutions if at all possible, or perhaps escapism or even just pulling their blankets over their heads.
In fact, this is nothing new, as this is the usual daily reaction of most
people when faced with adversity. Even when it does not seem possible to
retreat any further, retreat still happens. Anyone involved in TU organising
will know that individual and collective possibilities always vie for
attention. The main task of a TU organiser however, is to continue to provide a
collective answer to issues or grievances experienced by members. The task is
made much easier if successes can be pointed to as examples of what can be
achieved. It is at this level of local scale discourse, sometimes one to one,
on which a collective fightback is built but it requires hard, consistent work.
The danger is that the populist right can fill the vacuum, if the political
leadership minimises the problems and the answers seem complicated; with easy
solutions, that scapegoat others and arguments about leaving it to the strongman,
the extreme right can easily come to the fore.

The
collective approach based upon unity and solidarity in action and, in
conjunction with politics, provides a way of rebuilding confidence and
consciousness and answering the ‘what can be done’ question. So now you’ve got
this far - and are probably thoroughly
depressed! - you’ll just have to suggest your own answers as part of the
discussion and I’ll add my bit next week!

Friday, November 16, 2012

The
views expressed in this email and blog are those of the individuals whose name
is attached to the posting. They do not represent a collective position of the
WLG or the Labour Party

Dear
Comrades

This week’s
blog – number 10 - follows on from a collective sigh
of relief that we do not have to cope with President Romney, but that we still
face the cold reality of fighting international capital’s‘austerity’ onslaught. Below are some pieces
about how socialists who stood locally in the US fared and also, how they now
read their situation and the dangerous fudge that is likely to emerge from the
‘fiscal cliff’ debate.

The Labour
Representation Committee, to which Welsh Labour Grassroots is affiliated, held
its annual conference on Saturday 10 November and we provide a report below.
The practical realities of resisting austerity and taking a socialist
alternative forward were key issues at this conference and overlap with those
raised at our WLG conference two weeks earlier. Our discussion piece last week
– which has become a bit of a hit on our blog – has taken the dialogue forward
and in this week’s we explore the extent to which diverse forms of resistance
can be brought together.

Don’t forget
our regular WLG email and blog is available accessible on the web here.

Forthcoming events

Tomorrow,
Saturday, 17th November, there will be emergency demonstrations around the UK
in solidarity with the people of Gaza, including at these locations in Wales:

·Cardiff – 2.00 pm, Aneurin Bevan Statue, Queen Street

·Swansea – 2.00 pm, Castle Square

·Wrexham - 12.30 pm, Hope Street

Also tomorrow, in London, the Socialist
Educational Association and other progressive educational campaign groups are
holding a conference called ‘Picking up the Pieces after Gove’, 9.45 am –
4.00pm at Camden Centre, Camden Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE.

Cardiff Trades Council is organising a meeting as a follow up to
the TUC demonstration on how to come together to fight the politics and
policies of austerity. This takes place at 6.30 pm on Monday 19 November at the
Holiday Inn, Castle St Cardiff. Here is the Facebook link with the details and facility to indicate
that you are coming.

On
Tuesday 20th November, UNA Cardiff & District branch will be holding a
meeting on the theme, ‘Limits to Growth, a Global Problem?’ with Phil Kingston
(justice and peace campaigner) and Pippa
Bartolotti (Green Party). 7.00pm
at the Temple of Peace, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff. Free entry –
all welcome. The next WLG meeting will
take place on Saturday 1st December at Swansea Civic Centre (11.00am-1.00 pm)
with Mark Seddon as guest speaker.

Left Week – Len
Arthur

Well I started this bit with the US Presidential elections but had
to cover the 14 November ETUC day of action. We have also, in the last couple
of days, seen the latest murderous Israeli onslaught against the people of
Gaza. And we’ve had the police commissioner elections – results of which are
still coming in – and the Cardiff South & Penarth by-election, where Labour
has retained the seat. We will comment on these developments in next week’s
bulletin and blog.

The US Presidential elections have to be part of a look at last
week. Coverage has been huge but via ZCommunications you may be interested in these two pieces by US socialists
on how they read their situation at the start of Obama’s second term. First, Shamus Cooke explores the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate which will present a crunch
situation for Obama and the Democrats in challenging the neo-liberal onslaught
on the US working class. Second, is by Jack Rasmus who looks at the extent of the working class vote for Obama,
indicating that, despite all the money thrown at the election by the right,
workers have the power and ability to think and act differently. Karl Rove - sometime
advisor to the last Bush and now a political consultant to Fox and the
Republicans - could not accept the reality of the results trend toward Obama
and went into meltdown, delightfully caught by the Simpsons cartoon and TV commentator Jon Stewart. Closer to home, Michael Roberts provides a Marxist look at just how deep is the US economic crisis. Finally - in German,
but click the translation button if you wish - the European Left report on the sizeable votes for socialists that stood at the
local US elections, indicating that some seismic shifts of politics are
possibly emerging from the current crisis.

Some other bits of news you may not have picked up from the usual
sources as they perhaps are not ‘new’ but certainly have not gone away. From my
CND background I’m familiar with the white poppy as the peace movement’s
alternative to the red and a number of people who saw my Facebook posting
expressed an interest so here is the background information again. Regional pay proposals
emanating from the Tories are a threat to living standards and the economy - a
point made well by a recent press briefing from Unison.

The New Economics Foundation returns to the issue of ‘peak oil’
but with a different analysis, indicating how it can put a glass ceiling on economic
recovery. Left Futuresblog updates the awful plight of the
people of Ireland under the hammer of austerity, showing that, as people like
Michael Roberts have argued, the real aim is to shift wealth from workers to
profits. The Bank of England appears to have thrown in the towel according to Duncan Weldon on the TUC’s Touchstone
blog. And finally, Michael himself has just updated his engagement with the Marxist debate about the economy which, as ever, is well worth a read.

As I write, not only have we had the news about the fixing of gas
prices, butthe financial pages of the
Guardian over recent weeks have provided
ever more evidence of just how bankrupt is the capitalist system under which we
live. To take the headlines from just one day (2 November): ‘Comet plunged into
chaos as suppliers commandeer stock’; ‘Sharp fears for future amid predictions
of $5.6bn [full year loss] slump’; ‘Thinktank says global collapse in demand
will cut UK growth’; MP [Tory chair of Treasury select committee] criticises
Bank’s [of England] ‘defective governance’ ; ‘Lloyds adds £1bn to costs of PPI
payback’: says it all really. Yes, it seems, we do need to fight capitalism!

Left roundup:Labour
Representation Committee 2012 conference

Here is LRC conference report that I have just lifted from their
latest email – see the innovative TV section with excellent debates:

Over 200 LRC members and delegates from affiliated organisations
attended the annual conference on Saturday 10 November at Conway Hall in
London. In the morning session, conference passed the National Committee statement moved by
John McDonnell MP, which set out 14 action points for the incoming National Committee to take
forward. This was followed by an impromptu speech from Tony Benn (watch John and Tony’s speeches here).

Conference voted to endorse the decision of the outgoing National
Committee to adopt Labour Briefing, after its readers voted to transfer the
magazine to the LRC. Read more here: http://www.labourbriefing.org.uk/ . The
December issue of Labour Briefing will be out shortly, with campaign news on
the NHS, abortion rights, adult social care, tackling racism in football, the
prospects for a general strike, industrial action campaigns, full reports from
LRC and Welsh Labour Grassroots AGMs, and reports from the US, Nicargua and
Europe – and much more. Take out a Labour Briefing subscription today to
receive the December issue.

And closer
to home here is Darren’s report, taken from his Facebook posting:

Really good LRC conference in London yesterday.
There was a particularly interesting panel discussion involving councillors
from Broxtowe (Notts), Preston, Hull and Islington, who spoke about their
different approaches to the cuts. The Broxtowe and Hull councillors had taken a
straightforward 'no cuts' decision and had voted against the whip in doing so;
those from Islington and Preston were trying to minimise the impact of the cuts
on the most vital services but had made cuts in some areas, including (in
Islington) redundancies. Despite the differing approaches, all impressed with
their sincerity and commitment. The conference was also attended by George
Barratt, a Barking & Dagenham councillor who has been expelled from the
party after breaking the whip over cuts and is now an independent, while a
message was read out from Kingsley Abrams, a Lambeth councillor who was
suspended after he too voted against cuts but has now reluctantly decided to
accept the whip after feeling isolated and marginalised for several months.

There are hugely important issues here about
principles, strategy and tactics that we need to discuss much more thoroughly
as a left. It’s been suggested that WLG hold a day school on local government
issues, building on the panel discussion we had at our AGM recently;
personally, I think we should try to do that early int he New Year, and invite
a couple of the councillors who spoke yesterday along and talk about their
experiences.